Emails Released Today Could Pose Serious Problems For Clinton Campaign, If Not For Clinton Herself

[Impedimentus]

Below is an excerpt from the digital edition of the NY Times this evening:


"The question facing investigators, the officials said, is whether enough evidence exists to warrant criminal charges for improperly handling or in any way exposing highly classified secrets to potential disclosure. That remains to be seen.

Twenty-two of the emails on Mrs. Clinton’s server have now been classified as “top secret” at the demand of the Central Intelligence Agency because they discuss the program to hunt and kill terrorist suspects using drone strikes, as well as other intelligence operations and sources. The emails contain direct and indirect references to secret programs, the officials said.

The inspector general of the nation’s intelligence agencies, I. Charles McCullough III, has said that “several dozen emails” contained classified information, including some now determined to contain information at the “top secret/S.A.P.” level. That designation refers to “special access programs,” which are the nation’s most closely guarded secrets."


Check nytimes.com for full article:

[OhZone]

1. Not classified at the time. nt

[merbex]

2. People need to keep up: she asked her staff to 'rework' documents so they could be sent via email

But in the 'classified' business...a rose is a rose, by any other name is still a rose.

It is illegal.

Petraeus pleaded guilty for sending classified material improperly.

But keep your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears.

This is serious. Indictment serious.

[Impedimentus]

6. Absolutely - too many people here have no idea how classified material is handled and the ...

precautions that need to be taken, even for "potentially classified" material. They are clueless about how the way the classification system works and the precautions that need to be taken even before information is officially classified.

You aways error on the side that assumes the material is classified if you are doing your job. And, for most people with security clearances there is hell to be paid if you screw up.

[8 track mind]

65. I can vouch for your statement

you ALWAYS treat any material of this nature, including stuff you might have derived from it, as classified, even if you think it isn't. Any transmission of it over unsecured means will get you in a world of shit. No joke. It is not pleasant when you screw up and i have seen it happen first hand. It is a career ender.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

71. 100% correct!

[Zorro]

12. Bullshit

Revelation of sources and methods is classified. Summarizing the gist of information in general, non-attributable ways is not de facto classified.

[Impedimentus]

18. NOT TRUE - Absolutely depends on the material

At the level of TOP SECRET / S.A.P. your analysis is WRONG. Same is true for certain other information.

[NWCorona]

21. That guy doesn’t know what he's talking about.

[Zorro]

22. More bullshit

DIRNSA regularly provides public testimony on critical security issues based on analysis and information from sensitive sources and methods.

By your interpretation he's also guilty of exposing TS/SAP information.

[NWCorona]

19. Sorry but you are wrong.

If I wrote a summary with no identifiers of a classified briefing. Then emailed that out over a non secure network I'd be toast.

[Impedimentus]

23. You'd be toast and occupying government real estate in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary

But you would get a free lunch!

[NWCorona]

26. Probably beefaroni lol

[Recursion]

81. As always, the answer is "it depends"

I still have in my possession notebooks from my time in the Marines that are completely unclassified, but the literal words in them became classified the second they were typed up on the platoon laptop.

This is another example of how our classification system is hopelessly antiquated: it still focuses on "documents".

[giftedgirl77]

27. Petraeus handed documents to his girlfriend.

Huge difference.

[NWCorona]

31. Not really and matter of fact Hillary did worse.

[giftedgirl77]

33. Absolute bullshit.

I worked Intel as a paralegal in the Army, I have worked more spillage & wrongful classification cases than I care to remember.

[NWCorona]

51. Absolutely bullshit?

Hillary gave the server to a company for hosting that had no security clearance what so ever. They didn't even have a security system for the office. She also gave a thumb drive with the files to her attorney who also didn't have clearance. So if in fact you worked on REF B reports. You'd know how bad the info I just wrote was.

You aren't the only one to have held a security clearance.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

72. You're right... but dont let the facts get in the way of the coronation!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[zentrum]

68. But you were not the head

….of an entire Government Department. You were not SOC.

Whole different level of responsibility and competency called for.

[OhZone]

28. And yet she will never be indicted. Oh well. nt

[californiabernin]

57. You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

85. Who's going to indict her?

The power elite protect their own. She'll walk just like the Wall Street banksters walked. It's how oligarchy works.

[malletgirl02]

86. The power elite are different

If you are I did something like Hillary Clinton did with her server we at the very least would lose our clearances and probably never work again. This is why it makes me so mad the double standards.

[BreakfastClub]

76. Of course she won't, and I can't believe any democrat would want her to be! Good Lord! nt

[Le Taz Hot]

88. You apparently are unaware that not all on this board

are Democrats. Some of us actually have principles. Foreign concept for some, granted, but there it is.

[dchill]

78. Some people seem to be in utter denial about this fact.

It's crucial.

[Impedimentus]

3. Doesn't matter

If you ever worked with classified material you would know that there are things you simply don't do. Any career bureaucrat of member of the Foreign Service Corps knows that you don't even allow potentially classified information to be placed in non-secure environments. Such lapses would be career changers, including dismissal and civil and possibly criminal penalties. TOP SECRET/S.A.P. information doesn't just waltz it's way into that classification after the fact. Not knowing its potential either shows tremendous hubris, tremendous stupidity, or both.

[Beowulf]

10. She's the f-ing SOS!

It's her job to know what's potentially classified. And if the NYT is correct on the subject matter, any idiot should have recognized it needed to be kept secured. This is either reckless behavior or incompetence.

[JudyM]

20. And an attorney. It's so basic as to be laughably disingenuous that she claims "they weren't marked"

[AtomicKitten]

39. Hillary instructed an aide to remove headers on secure FAX and send it through nonsecure channels.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265210-email-clinton-asked-adviser-to-send-secure-fax-by-email

Excerpt:

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w/ no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material.

Relevant criminal statute in this case, 18 USC 793:

d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[iAZZZo]

63. "Hillary instructed an aide to remove headers on secure FAX and send it through nonsecure channels"

yep! http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

[grasswire]

69. that is the dangerous spot.

she asked staff to alter the documents so the marks signalling classified would not show up, so they could be transmitted.

[malletgirl02]

87. The poor aide most likely

will be going under the bus soon.

[leveymg]

61. She knew she couldn't legally declassify another agency's classified information.

She violated Sec 793 of the Espionage Act. Open and shut case, if the AG proceeds to a Grand Jury .

[Fawke Em]

13. It was still "sensitive."

Look - somebody, somewhere rewrote, not copy and pasted, information off SIPRnet and sent it to her. That's illegal. Period.

[merrily]

4. Friday news dump. South Carolina primary tomorrow, March 1 almost here.

No more debates or town halls before either one. Great timing all around.

[AZ Progressive]

5. You bet the RW attack ads will be all over this

"Hillary has poor judgement"

"Hillary puts our nation's security at risk"

"Hillary is unfit for the presidency"

[farleftlib]

8. It will be endless

National security and immigration are the only things they care about. They will beat this drum so loudly and repetitively that she will lose the GE. You can bank on that.

[Impedimentus]

9. Has nothing to do with RW attack ads - you have no comprehension of how the system for handling

classified material works. Has NOTHING to do with politics. Somebody really screwed up, maybe Clinton wasn't aware, but she should have been. You don't play softball with TOP SECRET / S.A.P. material ever. At that level, even if the material wasn't formally classified yet those who handled it should have know how sensitive it was - unless they were REALLY stupid or really arrogant, or both.

[CoffeeCat]

40. Ok...help me understand this

So, Hillary sent emails and received emails---that are now being categorized as Top Secret.

Ok...she has repeatedly said that when she sent and received this information--it was not categorized as Top Secret or Classified. Right?

Admittedly, I know nothing about sending/receiving government information (and less about how Top Secret/classified information is handled). This is why I'm asking...

Clinton says that the stuff she emailed/received wasn't Classified/Top Secret until AFTER it was sent. My inclination is to think that she did something bad. So, the government looks over emails that you sent/received on your personal server--and officially deems those emails as Top Secret. Doesn't that indicate that you royally fucked up? That you sent Top Secret materials over your private server?

I'm thinking that this bodes very badly for her.

However, she's saying the opposite--that she did nothing wrong, because--AT THE TIME--the info wasn't classified.

What's the real story?

Also, if you're generating a new email--of course that is not categorized as Top Secret/classified or anything else, because it is new material. But SURELY--a person knows if the subject matter and the details in these newly generated emails involve classified or Top Secret materials, correct?

(Just trying to understand here).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. One problem with Hillary's "explanation"... the TOP SECRET info found in her emails matches WORD FOR WORD...

that found in documents that WERE marked Top Secret at the time on a secured system!

So, the FBI wants to know, how did that classified material "jump the tracks" and go from the secured system onto Hillary's server, to which unauthorized personnel had access.

Bottom line: Hillary is in DEEP doo-doo!!

Say hello to President Sanders:

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Oldtimeralso]

46. Great Post

You show a very good understanding of classified material.
I had my clearance before the days of electronic communication, (secured phone lines were extremely rare) locked satchels and trusted couriers were the way to go.

ps I had the top security clearance at that time. Top Secret FEO (for eyes only) and BBR (Burn Before Reading).

[Impedimentus]

54. Burn bags are GREAT !

Bet you miss them

[6chars]

77. How does BBR work?

Is that a joke? If you burn it before reading, how do you read it?

[Thinkingabout]

7. There will be some surprises for some to see a SOS doing her job.

[Fawke Em]

16. Doing your job shouldn't expose sensitive information.

Challenge me... go ahead. I warn you, I work in cyber security.

[JudyM]

24. Oooh. Kinda hot.

[840high]

29. Putting lives at risk.

[MaggieD]

11. Whole bunch of nothing

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/new-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-points-to-a-key-role-played-by-a-deputy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Impedimentus]

15. Whole bunch of ignorance

about the nature of handling classified and potentially classified material. This is likely not going to end well for someone, maybe it won't be Clinton that is hurt, but heads are going to roll.

[Adrahil]

36. Ive held a clearance for over 30 years...

You are really overplayimg this, and some of your representations are just plain wrong. For example, it is entirely possible to create an unclassified summary of classified information. Also, somestimes all it takes to for something to go from classified to unclassified is to separate information into separate documents without pointers to the other document.

[Impedimentus]

41. No, they are not necessarily wrong. If you had a security clearance for that long than you know

that the determination of the legality of behavior is situational. Of course, you can take Top Secret / SAP/SCI, DOE Q or whatever and create an unclassified summary - no argument there. But that apparently is not what happened in the Clinton case. The holder of the clearance, as you must know, has a responsibility to use "good judgement" when handling information, even before it has been formally classified. People at Clinton's level, especially her close advisors must of known the sensitivity of the information even before any formal classification. They were sloppy, to say the least and sloppiness is no excuse.

[8 track mind]

67. +1

[Fawke Em]

17. It's not. But you keep believing that.

BTW, you don't know how to properly link a URL. Which tells me you know less about the Internet than my Mom, who's Hillary's age.

[NWCorona]

25. That link doesn't help your case.

[MaggieD]

32. I think it does

If you actually think they are going to indict a former SOS based on something her aides did, or even indict those aides for such incidental stuff you're going to be very disappointed.

[merbex]

35. And do you know what Petraeus' job title was hmmm?

He pled guilty.

GUILTY.

But let's nominate her.....

What a f***ing mess.

[NWCorona]

52. She instructed her aids to remove the markers.

This isn't incidental.

[6chars]

79. Hillary has faced scrutiny before.

“I’m well aware of the drip, drip, drip,” Mrs. Clinton said at a CNN town hall meeting this week, comparing it to what she described as other political attacks she has endured. “The facts are that every single time somebody has hurled these charges against me, which they have done, it’s proved to be nothing.”

[AzDar]

14. K & R

[840high]

30. k/r

[Oilwellian]

34. The WSJ is compiling all of her emails

This is the email that is creating fits for Hillary. It should be read from the bottom, up.



http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

[morningfog]

37. Saving the worst for last. One more dump coming.

[delrem]

38. There won't be any "charges". There just won't be.

Look what Cheney and co. got away with, the investment bankers got away with.
It's absurd to think that "justice is blind" to wealth and power. It isn't.

Just, FFS, use your brains and don't actually VOTE for them!
If you do, you deserve everything you get.
Only problem is, the rest of the world doesn't.

[Impedimentus]

42. You are probably correct ...

what any career government official would be crucified for almost never is a problem for he elites. And we are talking about "super-elites" here.

[delrem]

44. Yup. They'll go after a sex scandal tho'. That's their limit. n/t

[CoffeeCat]

43. Then why this slow drip, drip, drip

Why this slow drip of emails being released? It's odd. Why not just dump it all simultaneously? Why the staggered release?

Admittedly, I have not followed her email saga closely, so there's much that I do not understand.

There's an FBI investigation. Are they releasing her emails? How do they decided what to release and why?

(I apologize for all of the questions. I supposed I need to do some reading on this subject).

[delrem]

48. The problem isn't the emails, it's the private server. That's why.

The details of the emails, carefully vetted and redacted, is a red herring. That isn't the issue, or shouldn't be.

The problem is the private server which separated her political activities from scrutiny from EVERYONE, including the Dem admin. Including Obama. Nothing being released hasn't been vetted by her, first. And believe me, she was doing the vetting all along - this isn't some last minute thing. From her experience with Bill Clinton as POTUS she knew exactly what she was doing and it was planned from the start.

She DELIBERATELY scrambled her "private family emails" with her most high level gov't correspondences, to give her an excuse to "wipe" her "private family emails" before "transparently" handing over the rest. But of course there is no way to know what she wiped. No way. It's a charade.

It's like everything else with her. The Clintons are masters of throwing out red herrings.

eta: same thing with "the transcripts". The details of what she said isn't the issue - no doubt she said marshmallow nicely-nice things to her audience along with a few jokes according as a flunky speechwriter wrote it up. Both she and Bill are pro's at it, they could do it in their sleep. The issue is she got paid enormous money for nothing, just because she's obviously being pushed by the mover/shakers in the Dem party to be candidate for POTUS. The issue is PAYOLA and GRAFT, not "the transcripts". I very much doubt that when "the transcripts" are released they'll contain anything like a 47% quote. Because that wouldn't be needed. The issue is Bill speaking in favor of a free trade agreement with Columbia and cashing in big time, to the tune of millions, at the same time as Hillary is currying votes by promising she's against it - then Hillary going on to promote it, once in office. That kind of thing. Sleaze buckets.

[artislife]

58. They are better at than Agatha Christie...nt

[delrem]

62. The game of Clue.

Hillary Clinton. In politics. With lies.

Now a person only has to figure out the crime.
Kagan.
Kissinger.
War.
War profiteering for insider investment capital.

That's a start, I guess.

You figure it'd be worth $200,000,000?

[CoffeeCat]

60. So, did Obama realize or know that she was sending

SOS-business emails over her private server?

I get what you are saying--that WHAT was said is not as important as the fact that she had (apparently) walled off what she was doing from others on a private, non-secure server.

The FBI has her server? Even if she deleted emails, that doesn't mean that they're gone.

I wonder what Obama thinks about all of this.

What was she doing...going rogue and operating unilaterally and not wanting anyone in the Obama Administration to see what she was doing?

Thanks for bearing with all of my questions. I need to read up on this.

[delrem]

66. You don't understand what a forensic wipe is.

You don't understand that setting up a private server for the Clintons would require help from the highest levels of expertise and the Clintons were already acquainted with such people because of Bill's ex-job.

So yes, if she deleted emails and "wiped, as with a cloth" her server records (yes, it was a forensic wipe), that does mean that they're gone. Yes, it does mean that she has total and absolute control of all of this including the exact contents of the "dribs and drabs" that are getting doled out. She is most certainly in charge of this entire chiaroscuro.

I don't know what Obama thinks.
Obama is pretty cool and very smart. I think he's smarter than Bill and Hillary Clinton. I don't think anything that I might dream up about how he thinks of Hillary's antics would be close to correct. For one thing, he'd be far more aware of them, to an extent that really forbids me to even try to guess.

IMO Obama's second term, free of Clinton, has been excellent.
I like the team Obama Bidden Kerry.

Hopefully Sanders will be given a chance to make up a team, hire some people, set some things in motion, because I sure don't look forward to either Clinton or Trump.

[Kentonio]

82. It's worth remembering that by their nature emails have come or have gone to somewhere else too.

And there is no telling whether those other people carefully wiped their data.

[Dem2]

45. Banghazi!!!

The right loves this story. The rest of us are like - ok, so what's the big deal? Oh, right, people have an impetus to destroy this woman for political reasons. Funny how it's the same people who hate her for being political are the ones who are being hypocrites.

[Impedimentus]

47. Not Benghazi - TOTALLY FALSE ANALOGY !!!!!

Benghazi is a creature of the Republican Controlled House of Representatives.

This investigation is being carried out by the FBI, the Inspector General of the Department of State, independent attorneys at the Department of Justice, the inspector generals of the intelligence agencies, and the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

There is absolutely no comparison to the Republican led Benghazi hearings. Your analogy is not only false, it is ludicrous.

[AtomicKitten]

50. Conflating the two is subterfuge for them. SQUIRREL!!!11

[MrWendel]

53. New ring master...

same damn circus.

[Dem2]

83. This investigation was initiated through the right-wing Benghazi!!! committee

You can convince yourself now that it was not if it suits you.

State Department Turns Over 1,600 Newly-Discovered Clinton Documents to Benghazi Committee

1 day ago
The House Select Committee on Benghazi announced it received the records on Friday, ...

You were saying?

[silvershadow]

49. Missing link. nt

[nikto]

55. This sounds like insider-tripwire BS to me

I'm a bigtime Bernie-supporter, but this stuff just doesn't wash for me.

Pure, manipulated bunk.

Regarding Hillary, the only thing I am interested in obtaining,
are the texts of her paid speeches to
Goldman-Sachs, etc.

Emails, shme-mails.
I am sick of hearing about the damn emails.

[grendelsd]

56. Common Misunderstanding About Classified Material

A colleague of mine from the defense industry quipped, "Classified information is like kudzu: self propagating and indestructible."

Any information generated must be classified at the highest level possible until it is reclassified. I remember reams of paper that were notes we took that had no classified information in them, but were classified as a secures document in the room. The secret/top secret safes seemed to propagate into infinity.

Hence, "self propagating and indestructible".

Secretary Clinton does have a defense by saying that this was SOP at the time (Colin Powell had a private email server also). However, she is still vulnerable As has been said many times. If someone less connected had done what she did, they would be fired and/or (most likely) in jail.

If the Secretary came clean on why there was a separate server, perhaps it would lessen the blow. But understand that laws were most likely broken. ".. was not classified at the time" is not only a lame excuse but insulting to anyone who has ever held a clearance.

For the record, I think Secretary Clinton would be a fine president.

What she seems incapable of saying is the only reasonable defense, "Politician's have frequently used their own email servers for historic and/or political reasons. These emails are owned by the citizens of the US and therefore are their property. When elected, I will immediately issue an executive order that any and all government business will be conducted on auditable and enduring servers owned by the people of the United States."

... as unlikely as that may be

[DallasNE]

59. Not Fully Understanding The Problem

Why is a private server a problem? There is software that encrypts all outbound email then at the receiving end it will de-crypt the email. The requirement at work to invoke the software was to key the software name as the first word in the subject line embedded between two "#" signs. Would encryption not be considered secure?

[mwooldri]

70. Unless the email was encrypted before sending....

... then the problem is with the actual transmission of the email itself. Not every email server is secured, and even those with some security may fall back to sending the email in the clear if an encrypted connection cannot be established. Who knows how the private server was configured? Would it have communicated securely with Dept. Of State servers? White House servers?

There is a reason why financial companies do not want you sending bank account information or credit card information by email. It is insecure.

[DallasNE]

84. But I Worked For A Bank In The Credit Card Division

Generally the email being sent using the encryption software had an attachment that contained the cardholder information, rather than the body of the email. Later we switched to using NDM behind a firewall to transmit a file but there was a period when confidential information was sent by encrypted email. It was generally the business unit transmitting to a Merchant and I was in IT and only recall doing this once myself because the normal procedure was for me to generated the file/report and hand it off to the business unit to transmit.

My guess is that the email transmission would first be detoured to the encryption software when the subject line was properly coded and it would return the encrypted message that was then transmitted. The message that was transmitted likely contained the code necessary to de-crypt before presenting it to the email addressee.

[delrem]

73. The problem is that the private server mixed personal and government matters.

Then, because it was a private server, it was "wiped" of the "personal" stuff, and only a carefully redacted version was shown to the people. But there is no real way of knowing what was "wiped" and what was not. Because that's Hillary's own secret.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

75. Short answer: no

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[zentrum]

64. Thought she was

…supposed to be the super competent one.

This is sloppy, lazy, and unprofessional.

[eridani]

80. I'm with Bernie on this one

"Nobody cares about your damned emails."

[azmom]

89. K&R

[Tarc]

90. The right-wing talking points continue...

From Benghazi to this non-emailgate, there is much ado about nothing. One seeks to pin a terrorist attack on Clinton's head, the other seeks to pin not-classified-at-the-time emails onto Clinton's head.

Both attacks advanced by camps that have lost the substantive debate, and only have these to fall back on.

[renate]

91. I honestly don't think she did anything wrong

She's not stupid and she's a dedicated public servant. Like Bernie, I'm sick of hearing about her damn emails.

However, as we have seen, swiftboating works, and the facts don't always matter. So I'm glad we have two candidates running. If she were the only one and if misinformation and distortions and lies about the emails and security got a real foothold, there's no way we wouldn't have a President Trump in our future.